On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > As we have a single list for vblank waiters (not sorted by the vblank > they are waiting for), make sure we wake up all waiters rather than just > the first as we may have multiple consumers for this vblank event. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c > index 70f2b9593edc..930e3ed5234b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c > @@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ void drm_crtc_vblank_off(struct drm_crtc *crtc) > if (drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_ATOMIC) || !vblank->inmodeset) > drm_vblank_disable_and_save(dev, pipe); > > - wake_up(&vblank->queue); > + wake_up_all(&vblank->queue); I don't think we have any exclusive waiters currently so this shouldn't actually change anything. I guess given the unordered nature of vblank waiters exclusive waiters wouldn't really work anyway. I guess it might be a reasonable measure to avoid bugs if someone accidentally adds eclusive waiters so Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > /* > * Prevent subsequent drm_vblank_get() from re-enabling > @@ -1572,7 +1572,7 @@ bool drm_handle_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int pipe) > > spin_unlock(&dev->vblank_time_lock); > > - wake_up(&vblank->queue); > + wake_up_all(&vblank->queue); > > /* With instant-off, we defer disabling the interrupt until after > * we finish processing the following vblank after all events have > -- > 2.14.1 -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
